The Island of Logic

Recently IOL had to take on a lib that was commenting in response to Lorenzo’s post “The Separation of Church and State“. I thought that our responses were exceptionally brilliant in this case and would be worthy of an actual post. Shawn actually reminds me of many of the students that I used to have. They had a full knowledge of the facts, but understood no practical application of them. They didn’t have the ability to take their reasoning’s to their logical conclusions. It’s called deductive reasoning, and Shawn doesn’t have it. Here is the conversation below.

Shawn:

Phrase interpreted incorrectly

…

Interpretation incorrect?

Logic?

Where does interpretation intersect with validity? This post proceeds from the assumption that whatever Jefferson meant to say is the correct statement, which is not necessarily true.

The fact is that religion is no different from any other form of organization (it incorporates rank, ideology, and executive centrality); and if one wishes to make the “free speech” argument, then one must recognize the right of other groups to express their views in “public spaces” with displays of symbols.

So how soon after this “wall” is thrown out do we see people standing on the steps of SCOTUS with their fingers hanging over their jeans, and a swastika relief in stone at regional courthouses?

We have a common government, and that common government should only be displaying symbols common to all people, not just the accepted calling cards of the majority.

Jason M:

We do not have a “common” government, and this argument has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Where in the Constitution do you see that our government is a reflection of all people? This is a bunch of drivel. The Constitution does allow all people the right to speech and all religions the right to practice, but it does not in any way respect or reflect the opinions or values of all people. It is built on Judeo-Christian values and our founding fathers made no bones about that. You can see this in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself. The wall of separation is to protect religion from Government, but it is not there to protect Government from Religion.

When you have a “living breathing” constitution that bends and molds with the times, you have dead constitution and the rule of law is gone.

Lorenzo:

Shawn, the only problem with your argument is that you can’t change history, no matter how hard you try you can’t do it. I will repeat what I said before the best interpretation, is to see how the people who penned the Constitution lived it out, and I have a feeling when you do you won’t like what you see. Not only did they support a religious framework for the founding of this country they (the federal government) also also purchased 20,000 bibles to be placed in schools,and by the way what do you think the most researched document was for the making of the Constitution? You guessed it the Bible. I really hate it for you, but you can’t change history. http://www.michaelnewdow.com/ContinentalCongress.htm

Shawn:

History cannot be changed, but the future may be salvaged. It is not 1787 anymore.

This country is not bound by the opinions of long-dead men who had no foreknowledge of the immense diversity that would be encountered by the society they founded. This country governs its people, it does not rule. And to govern is to serve the citizens, whether they are of the majority or the minority.

The Constitution being built on similar values to a religion does not make it a propitiation of the religion from which it is derived. The founding document is a legal one. It is law. And as stated in the first amendment to its body, the law cannot ordain a religion with political power.

You are arguing contextualism, which in itself makes the Constitution static and unchanging.

But that brings to mind the first lesson of the exit from adolescence: things change.

Lorenzo:

And yet the further we get away from the Judeo-Christian principles this country was built on, the more we deteriorate as a country and as a society

Jason M:

A Constitution that can be bent and molded with the times without being changed with the amending process breaks down the entire rule of law which keeps a civilized society civil. This is what we see today. We have a President and Judiciary that completely disregard their Constitutional restrictions and do whatever they want. This can only go on for so long, we will either fall into anarchy, statism, or dictatorial rule.

Tags: Constitution, Separation of Church and State

Trackback URI | Comments RSS